Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 246 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 10
Set Bookmark
Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 4:43pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S6: Statistical Probabilities

As a graduate of one of the lesser regarded social sciences, I am absolutely tickled that a discussion of the validity of said sciences has become a discussion of what the *word* science means. Meaning making and the interpretation of words and symbols among different perspectives being a rather big area of social sciences. Ha.

That's all, carry on.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 6:28pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The First Duty

Sigh, the WRITER of "Measure of a Man," Melinda Snodgrass, didn't get royalties from the use of her character....
Set Bookmark
Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 5:08pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The First Duty

But suprisingly NOT a deterrent to the use of Bruce Maddox in "Picard," who evidently did NOT see royalties from her characters use in the series.l, from what I hear. Just in case anyone needs another reason to dislike that show.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Sep 6, 2020, 1:46pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: The Vulcan Hello / Battle at the Binary Stars

Whewwwwwww.... man, I am nervous about making this post.

So I think in broad terms fans of nuTrek tend to lean farther Left, politically, than non-fans. Obviously there is more nuance once a closer look is taken and love/hate for nuTrek is not an accurate measure for political appeal. But, I think it can also be said that nuTrek leans towards appealing to Left-wing minded fans, at least as far as the dreaded social media is concerned

What I find interesting is that, in challenging someone whose friendship I value and who I otherwise respect, on their love about Discovery as they discussed their rewatch, I touched a nerve upon mentioning the blatant, casual war crime the "heroes" commit in this pilot - booby trapping fallen soldiers. Which is treated as a brilliant tactical masterstroke no less. The response I got was a gif of Sisko saying he can live with it. My arguement to that was that was a full episode reflecting on the ethical implications of a chain of decisions and actions, versus a five minute tactical discussion that didn't even broach the topic of how unethical they were being. The discussion was shut down after that and I didn't want to push it too much. But it got me thinking...

You know who else seem to be able to live with casual war crimes? Trump fans. And that just got me thinking about how nuTrekkers and Trump fans employ the same system of denial over the same types of problems that both nuTrek and Trump present.

Rambling incoherent narratives/speeches become: telling it like it is, "true to life," makes the audience emotionally react.

Refugees as dangerous agents: nuTrek ends up saying they are. Trump fans believe they are.

Minorities as drunks and druggies, coveting the rich first-world life, but countering this with token minorities in visible positions.

Turning on allies that need help and leaving them to fend for theselves. (But it's okay, they were going to betray us anyway)

Escaping justice because those are the actions of the designated good guys. "Sure they did wrong, but it worked, didn't it?"

And all those people who soke out against Picard in THAT show was remenicent of a certain disregard for the achievements of veterans...

I'm not crazy for seeing these similarities, am I? Are there more examples, or is this all just poor correlation on my part? If not, I'm astounded, no, perhaps just fascinated that two "fandoms" who seem to be so diametrically opposed, could employ the same systems of denial over the same actions, character and consequences of their fan object, while at the sametime for some, decrying the behavour and cultishness of the other.

But in the end, to my eyes, nuTrek acts like the worst offending actions of that president are good heroic deeds, doesn't discuss or examine that fact (likely isn't even aware of it to be fair) and that hypocracy is just another reason I can't stand behind it.
Set Bookmark
Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 9:24pm (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S1: Charlie X

You're post contains some... interesting rhetoric, first compairing Charlie to Gen Z, as you see similarities to you're own kids, then you blame the parenting for Charlue's behaviour... which seems to indicate you blame parenting for the current generations behavour, which includes your own kids... so you... blame yourself for how your kids turned out? I don't think you meant to imply that.

I also think you've avoided the fact that pretty much ALL teenagers are enititled brats who want things done NOW without putting hard work in from time-to-time, as well as the fact that Social Media and an increasing online life gives these teenage hormonal developing voices more airtime and more like-minded people to share and spread their views.

I'd also like to point out that this is probably the only site where users can say "Okay boomer" without it being a generational backtalk thanks to a certain prolific poster. Haha.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 2:50am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S3: The Enterprise Incident


Counterpoint, (and this is with the proviso that I haven't seen this episode in a while - it's coming up on my rewatch with my friend) but that the Romulan Commander is so much like him, and yet as a Romulan, freer to experience her emotions than he is, might very well be the reason Spock does feel he can open up to her. If he felt a strong connection with her, and also potentially felt himself look up to her for being allowed to indulge her emotions he may have in a way felt himself capable of opening up to her in a way he had never done so with anyone in his life.

It's not that she's more important than the other people in Spock's life are, just that, as someone who a) is a reflection of himself and b) isn't one of those people for whom his reputation is important enough to maintain, he might have just felt safe enough and comfortable enough to let his walls down, more than he would in front of his shipmates or his parents.

I feel that the romulan Commander represented a place where he could truly be comfortable with himself. Not some half-human weirdo among Vulcans, or an overly stoic Vulcan among humans. She was a place where he could fully be himself without worry, at least for a time, and I bet he appreciated that.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 1:07pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@Tommy D.

Only June? Sheesh, this pandemic has me in a time warp. "Going by the book, minutes would seem like hours, hours would seem like days..." and Days would seem like months apparently.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 2:57am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

One reason I don't totally buy that there was no time for international distribution deals is that here in Canada, our Sci-fi channel snapped up broadcasting rights *months* ago, possibly even last year. And they seemed to not have *any* trouble with moving the premiere dates up. (Although, the channel is mostly reruns and movies at this point) And then slapping Disco S3 right after with the tag line "23 continual weeks of Trek!" to my comms grad ears like typical PR manuvering of either, "It's not a bug, it's a feature!" or an attempt to look more productive/successful than they are. I'm getting a very much "sunk costs fallacy" vibe from Trek right now. There's also the obvious hope in that marketing strategy for continued engagement and subscriber numbers on All Access, rather than the likely peaks and valleys of people subscribing for Trek then cancelling.
Set Bookmark
Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 2:11pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S2: Paradise

Personally I can't stand this episode because Alixus' voice is like nails on a chalkboard to me. It's got this really strong wavering/warble-y aspect to it that makes me actually cringe - and not in that meaningless meme way either.

She sounds like she's constantly on the verge of tears, ready to give in to anxiety like a child in the process of being scolded, yet her character is an unopposed (by her community) strong-willed and confident leader of people, who has convinced people to follow her into hardship - yet her voice doesn't carry ANY of that. So in one aspect I don't buy what the episode tells me about her because of her vocal performance, but on a far more viseral level I don't like this episode because her voice makes me want to rip my ears off. Haha.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Aug 8, 2020, 4:52am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

Yeah, I thought us Classic Trek Only fans were supposed to be the entitled, never pleased, angry and rude crowd. While the nuTrek fans were accepting, always pleased and understanding? What the heck guys, don't assign us a broad stereotyped view and then walk all over the turf you just gave us. I mean geez. Pick a lane.

Jammer's had a busy life since before the Kelvin movies. This is a HOBBY for him, one that he finds hard to make time for. It's his choice and his site. Ya can't bully him (yes, bully) into reviewing the show you like because "but it has Star Trek in the title." That's not how the world works. Just because something is labelled a certain way does not make it worthy, worthwhile, or good. It has to have the credentials and have done the work to back that label up. Plenty obviously think that Lower Decks, and even nuTrek as a whole, doesn't have much behind it's label.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Aug 7, 2020, 2:28pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks


You probably know this, but the term you're looking for is "astroturfing."

Per Merriam Webster:
"organized activity that is intended to create a false impression of a widespread, spontaneously arising, grassroots movement in support of or in opposition to something (such as a political policy) but that is in reality initiated and controlled by a concealed group or organization (such as a corporation)

Classic astroturfing is the practice of disguising an orchestrated campaign as a spontaneous upwelling of public opinion. … The term itself appears to have been coined in 1985 by then Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen, who noted that the mountains of letters he received about legislation on insurance originated with insurers. — New Scientist, 10 Feb. 2007

The modern form of astroturfing uses the Internet, and corporations, religious groups with a social agenda, and public interest groups can flood an in-box in an hour with e-mails that may come from a single source using many accounts.— Alan Boraas, Anchorage Daily News, 4 Apr. 2009"

Now, I'm not necessarily saying anyone is being a part of this here... but it's an observed, recorded phenomenon (there are several cited examples on wikipedia if anyone is so inclined to look) and therefore isn't out of the realm of possibility that it's occuring within Trek fandom.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Aug 7, 2020, 10:45am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@Guiding Light

... I'm only THIRTY. And old Trek captured my mind just fine when I was 13. It didn't have to be "made for me."

And frankly, I find a strict adherence to "relatability" to be something too many shows try and fail at. Sure, I DID relate to Geordi because he also had vision problems, but that was it, so it obviously plays a role, but it's not the be all end all. Geordi didn't encounter the same issues as me, and he didn't behave like me. He was better than me. He was an ASPIRATIONAL figure. He showed me who I could be. Who I should strive to be. And he did that by NOT coming down to my level. The same is true for every Trek character of that era. Trek was ALWAYS about striving to be better, not just accepting youself and being fine with it.

And old Trek was also quirky, vibrant, diverse and fun... Check out TOS's "I, Mudd" for all that in abundance. It's a comedy episode too.

You also clearly skimmed my comment, as you would have noted my assertion and critical opinion that the writing of the current shows LACK quality. Need I point out the jumbled writing of Picard's plot, the inability to successfully juggle all it's sub-plots and dropping many of them, the weak character motivations, the unearned emotional beats that are only momentary and carry no thematic weight, and rather obvious and transparent narrative cheats. So we obviously disagree on this fundamental point.

And frankly "recognized by wider audiences?" You mean the audience made up of pay-to-view streaming service subscribers? Who wouldn't be paying unless they already wanted to watch the shows? There's plenty out there that still don't give a toss about Star Trek, and no amount of genre bent shows are gonna bring them in. As for those that ARE interested, they're already invested in geek culture and would've likely ended up checking out the old shows eventually anyway, and would've gotten a better sense of what Trek was about. The only impetus they have to check Trek out now is because there is new stuff being advertised, grabbing people's attention and the producers didn't need to change what Trek was to do that. But that would've been harder than just doing their own thing and slapping the Trek brand on it, so they didn't.

And of couse, we don't know about viewing figure numbers because streaming services don't release that info publically, so you're "fraction of the 'old gaurd'" assertion is as likely a result of your filter bubble and echo chamber (real academic terms, FYI) as my saying that hardly anyone likes these shows would be.

What WOULD be nice, is if they shoved all this new stuff into its' own continuity, kept making it, then got someone else in to make a more true to Trek show that better represented the values of Trek. There'd probably be a lot less inter fandom bitching that way.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Aug 7, 2020, 9:43am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

Well, since Star Trek has given up entertaining me with new material, I've gone and had some fun with the old stuff:

Worf: Tell me what you think.

Dax: Okay, but you're not going to like it.

W: Tell me.

D: I think this situation with [Lower Decks] is a symptom of a bigger problem. [StarTrek] is dying. And I think it deserves to die.

W: You are right. I do not like it.

D: Don't get me wrong, I'm very touched that you still consider me a [trekkie], but... I tend to look at the [franchise] with a little more skepticism [...]. I see a [franchise] that is in deep denial about itself. We're talking about a [sci-fi series] that prides itself on maintaining [decades]-old traditions of [optimism, betterment, equality, thoughtfulness] and integrity. But in reality, it's willing to accept [nihilism and greed] at the highest levels.

W: You are over stating your case.

D: Am I? Who was the last [showrunner] that you respected? Has there even been one? And how many times have you had to [ignore the undercutting of Trekkian principles, meaningless violence and reductive, tawdry & shallow writing in new shows] because you were told it was for the good of the [franchise]? I... I know this sounds harsh, but the truth is, you have been willing to accept [series] that you know are [of mediocre quality]. [Lower Decks] is just the latest example. [Trek fans], you are the most [passionate, thoughtful, intelligent, caring, optimistic and hopeful people] that I've met. And if YOU'RE willing To tolerate [shows] like [Lower Decks, Picard and Discovery], then what hope is there for the [franchise]?

To be honest, that exchange has been ringing in my head since mid- season 2 of Discovery. Alas, how sad Ezri's speech in "Tacking into the Wind" has become a metaphor of the franchise itself... ah well, at least it made me chuckle while writing it... and then practically cry at it's accuracy once I finished.

Also, here we again have new Star Trek showing how diverse it can be and yet again making the female black woman protagonist a purposely annoying screw up who mocks people with aspirations, and only got where she is through nepotism and not because she's smart, determined or driven, which frankly is not really a great role model for anybody. New Trek is 0 for 3 here.

Do you guys realize that there hasn't been a Trek since Enterprise where one of the main characters wasn't just HANDED authority despite having hardly any merit? (And though I AM an Enterprise fan, Archer has shades of nepotism as well) Despite previous series showing just how incredibly hard it was to even get into Starfleet Academy?

I'm so sick of having to hear the people in charge of this franchise talk about how great it is when the truth is, this is just s paycheck for them, and they end up writing shows that have the veneer of Trek but ultimately that sheen only goes as deep as shallow references and mere lipservice to the values Trek used to espouse, while in reality ignoring all of them, and often doing the opposite. Add on top the covoluted and nonsensical writing and I just find myself absolutely bewilder that people actually LIKE this stuff. I mean, more power to ya, but I just don't understand as I don't see any quality in these entries to the franchise, either as Trek series or even as shows. (Although I admit, if Lower Decks wasn't associated with Trek, and therefore what Trek used to be, it may be passible - Futurama IS one of my favorite shows, and that DEFINITELY has that Trek parody DNA in it, so I'm not adverse to the concept - so long as it doesn't undercut the meaning of Trek.)

As it is, Ezri is right, Trek is dying. It gave up what made it strong and significant, and sure it may have entered an era of remarkable expansion, but without the core tenents that have guided Trek for 50 years, that expansion is untenable in the long term, and I fear the franchise will crumble quickly.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 8:22pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S7: The Siege of AR-558


Cirroc Lofton and, before he passed, Aron Eisenberg had a DS9 rewatch podcast which Cirroc is continuing. Not long ago he had a panel discussion (so a zoom chat) with Armin Shimmerman and Robert Hewitt Wolf about the creation of Quark "from page to stage", and what the writers script versus how Armin interprets it. You may find it interesting. They talk a lot about Quark's comedic role versus his serious moments.

It's called "The 7th Rule" and the video is something like "Armin Shimmerman - From Page to Stage"
Set Bookmark
Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 4:58pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I myself wasn't entirely comfortable outright labelling it "Cultural Appropriation" as that involves a larger can oof worms than I think the issues deserves. But I was curious about the similarities, in the production of these new shows, the response of the fans against them, and the response to those fans by the ones that do like the new shows.

Your responses helped me better organize my thoughts on this, and gave me a better idea and understanding of just why this fracture in the Trek fandom was taking place, the dynamics involved, as well as my own resentment towards the current direction of the franchise.

I think if we ever would like to get a Trek back that better represents what we valued about it in the past, that understanding will be vital to taking the first steps towards that more than any amount of purely emotionally driven bickering will, no?
Set Bookmark
Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 4:45pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

I'm taking my friend through Trek for his first time, and we recently watched the 2nd TOS pilot "Where No Man Has Gone Before" which involved the ship crossing a galactic barrier and humans gaining god-like powers and ambition... now granted that was travelling OUT of the galazy, rather that towards its center. Yet, I can't help but wonder, is the "god" being here merely a being similarily enhanced as Mitchell and Denher were? An alien exiled who then obtained these powers thanks to his journey?

(Ignoring all the continuity of there even BEING a Great Barrier at the center of the universe and that it was seemingly impossible to pass through, yet incredibly easy to do so)
Set Bookmark
Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 4:36pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: The Drumhead


This episode could, and also has, been seen from the opposite side as well.

I think a lot of the black/all lives matter issues could be dealt with if they simply amended a "too" on the end. Black Lives Matter Too. Now, I've come to see the "too" as implied, that the movement was never saying one life matter MORE... just that those lives are the subject of the debate that is wanting to be discussed.

But I think it's also wordier and wasn't put in to be snappier and more eye-catching. More of a branding issue than a ideological one. Now that the movement has gained prominance, perhaps it would be better to add the implied "too" back in, making it explicit to better foster more constructive discourse. It would allow those with issues against BLM to feel more heard, and remind supporters of the ultimate goal of the movement: equality in racial power dynamics.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 7:28am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

So. We now have word of a new nickelodeon produced Star Trek cartoon for kids called Star Trek: Prodigy. Cause a) prodigies in Trek hae gone over SO well in the past, and b) why do we need a show to introduce kids to Trek? Right, because all the new shows are "mature" and totally innappropriate for kids. Bravo, lets dilute the brand to the point we have watered down shows for everyone!

You know, on Twitter there's a lot of "Trek positive" types. People that do enjoy the shows and, though I personally don't see it, see identifiable characters and optimism in them. Which, great for them, I guess

What many of them ALSO like doing is making out that the majority of the fans that DON'T like the new shows are killjoy stick in the muds too overly concerned with nerdy details like timelines and continuities and canon. Often calles "old fans" and with words like "gatekeeper," "toxic fandom" and "haters" bandied about. Y'know, to other us inorder to more easily make out as in the wrong.

The image they portray of those that aren't on board the new direction is one of dork that won't "let [them] have fun." And that phrase rang a bell in my head it took me awhile to figure out, and when I remembered what that phrase was calling back to, I found myself unsure if I was on to something, or way off-base and definitely dipping into dangerous territory involving raciL politics...

The long and short of it is that the phrase "let us just have fun" is a common arguement used by culturdl appropriators. That's why it rang a bell. It remindes me of the class I had about it in University.

Having made the link, I spent most of the day noodling it in my head. Is cultural appropriation applicable to the situation? Is it applicable to Trek? To any pop culture artifact? Is invoking that term overstating things, or worse, racially insensitive? Big questions. And certainly something one does not wish to be wrong about.

What is cultural appropriation? It's largely involved in racial relations and power dynamics. It carries racist undertones, though is more cghalked up to lack of understanding rather than intentional malice. But it is essentially when aspects of a marginalized groups culture is taken in and adopted by a ggoup in power and stripped of meaning and cultural significance...


To look at it, cultural approriation wouldn't be applicable to Star Trek. Trek was, afterall, created by a white man - an individual belonging to a group with the most power (others may disagree, not the point right now) and for a long time Trek carried the stigma of being enjoyed by nerds, typically white guys that today's culture would label as "entitled 'nice guys' and creeps" (not 100% wrong there, I think, though not totally accurate either). Trek is also a part of pop culture, that is, popular culture - made for the masses.

But then, let us also look at how Trek is considered a significant cultural artifact. The spread and importance of Trek is well dicumentd, as it it's influence and impact. Let us also consider that it is only recently that "nerd culture" has gained popularity and power. For a long time society looked down on nerds and nerd culture. Nerds were not as valued as jocks and their various sports and athletic powress. Nerds were considered "beta" and lesser than the non nerds. Nerds got beaten up, bullied and stereotypically subjected to wedgies on the schoolyard. Nerds, and nerd culture, was marginalized.

And Trek was and is, I think it's safe to say, a foundational part of the nerd cultural identity. Star Trek was a safe space for nerds, where the hallmarks of their sub-culture was found: intellectual debate, problem solving, a sesire for an equal society where intellectualism was just as valued as brawn, teamwork and respect and a deep, scientific curiousity and inmagination.

Trek became a cultural signifier for nerds, and was representational of a nerd's identity as a person. People hsve literally worn it as a badge of pride.

And suddenly it becomes SO clear why there has been such a divide in fandoms over how pop cultural artifacts were treated... The nerd has risen in power and influence, so of course the business side of Hollywood is going to try and mdke money off the situation. So nerd cultureal artifacts are appropriated. But many argue at a superficial, surface level, containing none of the ideas that made them culturally relevant. Batman kills, Star Wars mucks with the hero's journey, Doctor Who alters the rich history it built and Star Trek presents the future as a reflection of who we are rather than who we ciould and should be. Not that I agree with everyone of those, but it's not to hard to see how nerd culture is being dismantelled for the masses to have "fun" and the corperations to make cash.

Now, is this as bad as a white celeb wearing a hijab in a music video with similarily culturally significant music samples they're making money off of? Obviously the appropriation of Trek doesn't contain racial undertones. Plus, the rise of nerd culture in stature dimishes the "marginalized" aspect of appropriation. So I think, no, it's not as bad as the more racial examples. But I'm sure as heck not satisfied with the dismantelling and misappropriaton of my identity in the name of your fun either.

Is it trying to protect a part of my identity, my cultural identity, from missappropriation, or is it gatekeeping? It it defending the traditional ideas of a cultural artifact, or is it toxic fandom? Is it showing respect to the meaningful "true" examples of Trek, or is it just "hating?"

So yes, I've spent a day with these thoughts running around my head and I still can't really tell if I'm on to something here, or way off-base, overstating the issue and worst, disrespecting cases of cultural appropriation that do have that race relation/power dynamic to them.

It is just a show after all. Except it isn't. It's important culturally and personally. Thoughts?
Set Bookmark
Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 7:25pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@Dave in MN

*sigh* Way to undercut my big post there with that crack. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Interesting points. For me, I see each show in the franchise as having its own merits and identy, but it's always important for me how each show fits in with the others, which for the most part they do. For that reason, Discovery and Picard had more to overcome because they were less concerned with fitting in with what came before, so they REALLY needed to work that much harder to win me over. Which unfortunately they did not.

Frankly, I agree with you about the two specific exaples you gave. The interview NEARLY won me over, but it wasn't enough to overcome all the negatives I saw.

I also DID, like Pike, but the rest of the show still not fitting with the rest of the franchise kept me from embracing the flaws I felt carried through in Season 2.

I've yet to see The Orville, but agree with your assessment of Lower Decks.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 6:58pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks


Except those aren't really directed at anyone, ESPECIALLY the "Lowest Common Denominator" - it just means appealing to the widest audience possible. That's not an insult directed AT specific people, it just means a piece of media is created to appeal to as many people as possible - the criticism of that being that by trying to appeal to too many people it's not trying to be its best self. People-pleasers get this all the time - they end up miserable when they can't keep everyone happy, and infact building self-worth solely on the assessment of others is seen as a negative that can negatively impacf metal health. Star Trek had a dedicated niche that loved it for what it was, but now that it's broadening its appeal over potentially six (SIX!) shows, it's losing it's identity and driving away those that knew and respected what it stood for, before it started trying to hang out and appeal to the popular kids.

As for the others, unless someone says something like "I can't see this appealing to anyone but _______ people" (which is itself more a communication of not understanding the appeal the shows ARE having IN SPITE OF the characteristics that fill that blank that the speaker can't get past), criticism using those terms aren't about the audience, but the content. Hell, I grew up watching and loving Red Dwarf, which is a sci-fi show with astoundingly juvinile humor. But I don't get insulted by the show being labelled as such because it IS juvinile in most of its humor. But that sure as hell doesn't mean that my enjoyment of it makes ME juvinile. Or at the very least, that's not all my enjoyment of the show says about me. And it certainly doesn't behoove me to associate my identity with the labels/descriptions attributed to what I watch. I'm not juvile because I watch the juvinile Red Dwarf anymore than I'm intelligent because I watch intelligent Star Trek.

Discovery, Picard and now it would seem Lower Decks can be said to have moments of nilihism, masochism and juvinilism, and at least to my perspective rely more heavily on moments of pure spectacle that carries no meaning for me, and is therefore dumb/stupid because there seems to be no thought behind its use in any given scene apart from being spectacle for spectacle's sake. However these attributes I would not have considered as part of the identity Star Trek had built for itself, and as such when I talk of such things appearing in the series, it is an indictment on the quality of the media itself, and not an assessment of the viewing audience.

Compared with name calling and generalizing against those who express their negative opinions - which ARE direct indictments against that audience member for their SUBJECTIVE opinion on a SUBJECTIVE piece of media.

You can comment on how much you like the shows all day. Fine. If I then go an post a comment like "Well, I can see there are SOME out there who are naive and stupid enough to enjoy this tripe." Then heck yeah, I'm being an asshole and you'd be correct to give me what for. Nobody that I've seen is doing that.

If I post a comment to you refuting some of the points you made such as: "Hmm, interesting perpective, but I don't see how Raffi and Seven's hook up is anything but a cheap tactic to entice viewers to watch the next season," I'm attempting to initiate a debate to hopefully gain perspective on how others might not see it the way I do.

If you want to engage with posts about the nihilism, masocism and juvinility some posters see as inherent to these seriers, then the onus is on you to initiate that debate and explain your perpective on why those aspects AREN'T inherent or don't matter. Don't just engage with someone to tell them their a dick because their opinion of a show contains words you interpet as a direct insult. Or at the very least, EXPLAIN your offense so some meaningful back and forth can occur rather than some tit-for-tat, "I can call you names because your post made tenuous insinuations that I interpreted as labelling me ________" that merely acts as a tactic to lessen the value of the opinions you don't agree with in your eyes.

You like the shows. You give them a chance. Great. You have a whole comment section with which you can debate the merits of Lower Decks and the value you see it bringing to Trek, while we debate the ways it damages Trek. Lets have some mother-lovin' DISCOURSE. Tell me WHY it's not nihilistic, masocistic or juvinile please. Or you can post your opinion and leave it at that, that works too. Me? I'm gonna drop a paragraphs long comment espousing the difference between critisizing a show versus it's audience, hope it sounds sage and not insulting (apologies if it does) and hoefully not bounce back outta here for another month long stint.

(And yes, I'm aware I made a big comment awhile back about commenting on comments, but I got tired of seeing this cyclical arguement cropping up all the time and felt I had to speak up. Hypocricy, thy name is "Nolan")

And for the record, I see this show as completely unecessary given the already excelent sci-fi parodies out there that lovingly spoof Star Trek, like Red Dwarf (which Patrick Stewart is on record as loving) and Futurama. Trek poking holes in ITSELF seems counter intuitive to me.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 10:21pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S4: Terra Prime


Alas, you have fallen into my trap. ;-P

As I said, I'm leading my friend through a "curated" watchlist. I've only picked the episodes that represent quintessential and/or good Trek, ones necessay for character/plot progression, ones I have a soft spot for, my favorites and the ones that spoke to me about the hope for humanity's future... I think you know where I'm going with this. Haha. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Besides, my friend has detailed his distaste for more heavily serialized works, where each episode is purely a stepping-stone to the next. That, coupled with Discovery ALSO delving into the Mirror Universe in a way that makes the Enterprise MU episodes more necessary to have seen, and my own distaste for what Trek has been serving lately, not to mention the unrelatability of the characters m, scatter-shot writing style and much more disregard to continuity than Enterprise dreamed of means I'm leaping right over it to get to that good ol' 60's filmmaking cheesiness. (And he's also enjoying TOS so far too, for entirely different reasons than Enterprise - more than Enterprise in fact, according to him.)
Set Bookmark
Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 11:44pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

Man, I'd much rather get Futurama back... ah well, at least Star Trek is finally just being up front about what it's become - a bad parody of itself.

Seriously, it's like CBS saw all the jokes and deconstructions of Trek in other series and on Social media and decided to ACTUALLY address them. No. Swear Trek on Twitter is funny because that wasn't in Trek. Futurama works as a loving parody because it built it's world around that goal.

I think I saw someone mention Maddox here or else where, so maybe that's why I'm thinking of him now. How he wated to take spart Data (deconstruct him) to figure out how he worked so he could build more Data's, while Data refused because he didn't believe Maddox could put him back together again without losing the essence of what made Data, Data. Data knew you could not just build something Data-like enough that one could slap the name "Data" on it and have it be Data anymore than you could slap the label "gourmet" on a McBurger and have it not be considered fast food.

"I am the culmination of one man's dream. This is not ego, or vanity. But when Dr. Soong created me, he added to the substance of the universe. If, by your experiments, I am destroyed, something unique, something wonderful will be lost. I cannot permit that. I must protect his dream."

Au Revoir, Star Trek.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jul 8, 2020, 10:33pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S2: Regeneration

@Cody B re: The Borg ship. It's actually just the ship from the research team that found them, being modified over the course of the episode. If you pay attention to the model, you'll see it's eventually got a big cubish chunk added to it at the end. Clearly they were in the process of cubify-ing it.

As for the Borg themselves, I see a few explanations: that being damaged and frozen for 100 years has limited the recall of the small hivemind they create, maybe causing them all to act on instict to rejoin the collective, but with gaps in their knowledge (like their name) or, they link up with the hivemind present at that time which has yet to pick a name or become biological assimilation machines (unlike the drones from the future that we see)

There is also a line in there I believs about how Phlox only survived being injected because of his Denobulan physiology. Maybe the fact he has to share each of his three wives with three partners of their own was too much of a collective for even the nanoprobes to handle.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Jul 2, 2020, 7:15pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

Wow, I googled it, that's uh, not a very good looking ship... but I think I have to give some of the design a pass what with the Steamrunner Class being one of my favorite ship classes and having a similar setup. Why can't they just declare all this a seperate timeline/universe? At least then I can be comforted knowing this won't carry through the rest of the franchise. (Blahblah same as TNG/DS9 complaints back then blahblah)
Set Bookmark
Thu, Jul 2, 2020, 1:14am (UTC -5)
Re: BSG S4: Sine Qua Non


Pretty sure that's Mark Shepperd's (Romo's) real accent.
Next ►Page 1 of 10
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2020 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.